University of Bologne Engineer Redates the Great Pyramid?

Italian UFO enthusiast and University of Bologne engineer Alberto Donini has "always been passionate about ancient lost civilizations In 2021-25, was a speaker at the World Paleo-astronautics Symposium in RSM with various conferences on the mysteries of ancient civilizations." He has 15 non-peer-reviewed papers on Research Gate (mostly repeats of the same material) on these topics. In one of them he presents an innovative way of finding the answer to the question of the dating of thge Great Pyramid. He calls it the “Relative Erosion Method” ('Preliminary Report on the Absolute Dating of the Khufu Pyramid Using the Relative Erosion Method', January 2026). This Relative Erosion Method is based on determining the ratio between two types of erosion affecting the same type of rock in the same location: one with a known date and the other with a date to be determined, this ratio is then used to calculate the age of the stone block under examination.  

It is based on the fact that the basal layer (or a basal layer) of the pyramid construction does not 'fit' the foot of the pyramid's final casing. So, when the latter were placed on top they protected PART of the slab from erosion. When the casing stones were removed down to that basal layer (which we know happened under the Mameluke caliphs in the 1300s AD) the whole slab was exposed to sub-aerial erosion (but also locally to foot passage - page 6 of his report and his fig. 4, a vry clear example). So, he reasons, by measuring the differences in roughness of the more eroded edges and the less eroded "shadow" are - Donini reckons - all other factors being equal, we can calculate how much longer the edges were exposed to erosion than the areas originally covered with casing stones.

So Donini undertook fieldwork at the site to take measurements at twelve points around the Great Pyramid, another nine at the Pyramid of Khafre and a number at the site of three Queens' Pyramids in the Giza Eastern Cemetery. Here it should be noted that nowhere in the report is there mention of this fieldwork taking place under a permit issued by the Egyptian authorities or in collaboration with the archaeologists already having the concession for investigations of these monuments. This is a big no-no, and also potentially illegal. 

As a result of the measurements taken, Donini arrives at a view (p. 34) that:

"although the resulting date ranges are wide, the conclusions indicate a low probability for the official archaeological dating of 2,560 BC, which remains plausible only for the two Queens’ pyramids analysed (G1b of Meritites I and G1c of Henutsen).

For these reasons, it is likely that the pyramids of Akhet Khufu and Khafra (G1 and G2) date back to approximately 19,000–23,000 BC, whereas at least two of the Queens’ pyramids (G1b and G1c), located adjacent to the Pyramid of Khufu, were constructed much later, presumably between 2,500 and 5,000 years BC. It is therefore plausible that the pharaohs Cheops and Chefren merely renovated the two largest pyramids on the Giza plateau, attributing their authorship to themselves, and possibly built the Queens’ pyramids.

On the basis of this preliminary report on relative erosion measurements (REM) carried out on selected pyramids of the Giza plateau, it can be concluded that around 20,000 years before Christ there existed a civilisation in Egypt capable of constructing at least the two main pyramids (G1 and G2)."

and there the engineer's text ends.

The method is at the same time at first sight a very clever one, but at the same time it is based on a totally false premise, one of which the author himself seems already aware - but ignores the implications of (pp. 8-9). The first is assuming that all weathering of the 'shadow zone' (the bits of blocks exposed by removing the casing) POSTdates the removal of the overlying blocks, and secondly that the minute the casing stones were gone, the shadow zone was cleanly exposed to subaerial erosion and remained like that for over 700 years.

                                 Ancient Architects                         

The first cannot be assumed. The blocks would be quarried, brought to the site and may well have been stockpiled before a team was gathered to level the limestone outcrop on which the monument was later to stand and then to actually lay the foundation pavement. Once that had happened the first course could be laifd on top (but NOT where the later casing stones were going to stand0. in any case, it is possible that the construction began from making a central core and the peripheral blocks of each course may have been added in a later stage of the buildig process. In the meantime all sorts of activities could have been undertaken on the pavement around the edges of the construcytion activity. One cannot therefore assume that the casing stonnes were placed on a pristine fresh-from-the-quarry surface. It may already have undergone some erosion before sealed under the casing.

Secondly, Donini has not done his homework and determined the previous history of the parts of the monument he is interacting with. What other researchwers have done what to it before he got began his investigations? This is normal preliminary work in any archaeological project.

If Donini had done that, he would find that the current state of the site is the result of massive clearance of sand and rubble from around the pyramid base in the 19th and early 20th century. Photos of the site from the 19th century (Francis Frith for example) show the lower flanks covered by piles of debris. So neither the 'shadow zone' nor the outer edge zone of the pavement blocks were at that time NOT being eroded. If you think about it, the Mamelukes removing the blocks all up the side of the pyramid cannot have done so without debris falling down all along the side of the monument being worked upon, and there was no real reason to clean up the devastated site after the stone robbing was suspended. This immediately cancels one of the values in Domini's calculations, there was not a 700-year exposure of the 'shadow zone', it was much less. The edge zone erosion is largely that from the period from the construction to the slabs being covered up by debris. But since the time when there was erosion of the 'shadow zone' is unknow, the "rate of erosion" of the 'edge zone' cannot be put into years.

University of Bologne Engineer Digs Up Alien Artefacts in Mexico?

A report on Research Gate Italian researcher and engineer Alberto Donini and Swiss researcher and journalist Tomas Hrico is an account of the discovery of three apparently ancient artefacts allegedly depicting aliens (Alberto Donini, Tomas Hrico 'Remarkable Artifact discoveries in Mexico', Reseach gate Nov 2025). Donini works for the University of Bologna, Italy, Hrico describes himself as 'Archaeology, Astronautics and SETI Research Association (AAS RA), 3800 Interlaken, Switzerland'. The artefacts were dug up at Cerro del Toro (Hill of the Bull) near the Mexican town of Ojuelos de Jalisco, a place to which the authors were taken by the guide Juan Cardenas from Ojuelos.

"Based on personal exchanges with fellow researchers around the world and an extensive online investigation, Alberto Donini and Tomas Hrico travel to Mexico in early 2025 to verify the accuracy of the information they have previously gathered. During an expedition into the nature, led by a local tour guide, they excavate three small artifacts (two made of stone and one of burned clay), which are buried around 20-50 cm under the soil. The treasure trove is well hidden among cacti and bushes and is situated close to Cerro del Toro (Hill of the Bull) [...] To operate completely legally, the two researchers obtain access and excavation permission from the land owner before starting their expedition in March 02, 2025. Deep in the field, equipped with pickaxes and a dagger, Donini and Hrico begin to excavate and spend the next four hours documenting meticulously their work with photographs and videos.[...] The first artifact made of stone appears after around three hours of digging during which several bigger stone rocks need to be removed and thick roots to be destroyed. [...] Approximately 40 minutes later, the third object (a small figurine) is discovered: the one and only find made of burned clay (probably of terracotta) and therefore datable by using the thermoluminescence method. [...] Once back in Switzerland, Tomas Hrico visits the “Laboratory Kotalla” in Germany to have this third find to be analysed by TL. Two days later he receives the positive results showing the six centimeters-tall figurine to be around 2130 years old! [...] In order to prevent any criticism and to additionally confirm the ancient age of the little figurine respectively the high quality of the working method used by “Laboratory Kotalla”, a second analysis was conducted by “Oxford Authentication Ltd” – a professional facility in England."

Wow, eh? These objects are illustrated below, first the engraved stone plaques:

and then the fired clay 'figurine'

The 'excavation records' (photos) show no attempt was made to humidify the soil to allow any colour changes to be identified, the photos show them grabbing around in dried dusty lumps of root-riddled loam so the excavators' assertion that "there are no disturbances caused by previous digs – soil, vegetation and root system are completely untouched" are totally meaningless. An authorization or permit is strictly required to conduct archaeological investigations in Mexico. According to the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic and Historical Zones and Monuments, all archaeological exploration, excavation, or removal of materials must be authorized by the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH). The "landowner's permission" (and do they have this at third hand from the tour guide or actually have it in writing?) is not enough. A permit is also needed to remove artefacts from the country to take to laboratories in Switzerland and the UK. Do Donini and Hrico have (a) an excavation permit and (b) an export licence for the artefacts, or did they do both illegally?

Fortunately there are some doubts about what they actually found. Despite the assertions over the TL dates from both Laboratory Kotalla and Oxford Authentication Ltd, all three fall stylistically into the range of 'artefacts' from eBay sold to tourists as "ancient alien carvings". It is odd that digging at the place their guide pointed them to, the diggers only found those three artefacts, no other finds being reported. I think these are tourist fakes.  

Alfredo / Armando Mei's 36400BC

               Amazon                 

Alfredo (often published as Armando) Mei promotes a pseudo-archaeological theory claiming that the Giza pyramids and associated structures predate dynastic Egypt by tens of thousands of years and originate from a lost, advanced prehistoric civilization. His speculative reconstruction of deep human prehistory seeks to align ancient mythological narratives with selected geological and climatological events.

Central to his argument is the claim that the Giza pyramids do not belong to the dynastic period of ancient Egypt but instead originate in a remote primordial epoch identified with Zep Tepi (“the First Time”), which he dates to approximately 36,400 BCE.

His date for this Zep Tepi was originally derived from proposed astronomical alignments. To this he now adds interpretations of satellite-based remote sensing data, which he argues reveal architectural features predating known Egyptian civilization. On this basis, Mei posits the existence of a technologically advanced global civilization that flourished tens of thousands of years ago and was subsequently destroyed by catastrophic natural events, surviving only in fragmentary mythological traditions.

A pivotal component of his framework is the Toba supereruption, conventionally dated to approximately 74,000–75,000 years before present (BP), which is widely recognized in the geological record as one of the largest volcanic events of the Quaternary period. While the severity of its climatic and demographic consequences remains debated among palaeoclimatologists and anthropologists, some models propose that the eruption may have contributed to a temporary reduction in human population size, often described as a genetic “bottleneck.” Mei interprets this event not merely as an environmental catastrophe but as a civilizational collapse, which he associates with later mythological traditions concerning lost lands such as Atlantis, Lemuria, and Mu.

I really do not understand the logic of this argument. There is a significant chronological discontinuity within his framework. The proposed eruption of Toba at approximately 75,000 BP precedes Mei’s proposed construction date for the Giza monuments (36,400 BCE) by nearly 40,000 years, a temporal gap for which he provides no coherent mechanism of cultural transmission, technological continuity, or archaeological evidence. Consequently, the only conclusion one can reach is that his speculative link between this volcanic event and the emergence of a highly developed architectural tradition several tens of millennia later remains at best theoretically underdeveloped and empirically unsupported. This chronological inconsistency highlights a broader methodological reliance on associative reasoning rather than actual evidence.

Here's the blurb for his 2025 book:
36,400 BCE – The Secrets of the Gods:

A Research-Based Investigation into the Origins of Human Civilization

What if key aspects of human civilization did not emerge gradually, but instead originated from a much earlier and more advanced cultural framework?

In 36,400 BCE – The Secrets of the Gods, independent researcher Armando Mei presents a structured investigation into the deep past of human civilization, focusing on archaeological evidence from the Giza Plateau and its surrounding context. Drawing on field observations, architectural analysis, and satellite-based remote sensing data, this book challenges conventional chronological assumptions without resorting to speculative or mythological narratives.

This book explores:
Architectural and spatial anomalies at Giza that resist conventional explanations
Evidence suggesting advanced planning, metrology, and structural logic
The implications of non-invasive satellite technologies (SAR) in archaeological research
The possibility of a lost pre-dynastic cultural horizon predating known civilizations
Unlike many works in the field of alternative history, this study avoids symbolic interpretations and focuses instead on physical constraints, architectural coherence, and verifiable methodological frameworks.

Here we go Again: Giza Scan Scam Prolongued

                                     .                                      

Instead of sitting down and writing up the SAR Doppler tomography scans that allegedly revealed the massive shafts and chambers under Khafre's Pyramid at Giza (Nicole Ciccolo's "Under-Khafre-Pyramid-Scan-Scam" the Khafre Project), Dr Filippo Biondi has apparently "written a book" and to plug this, he's going the rounds of the YouTube podcasters giving interviews. So here he is on the " PowerfulJRE podcast" (Joe Rogan Experience #2443 Jan 23, 2026 - Filippo Biondi, 127min). He also appeared on Hugh Newman's MegalithomaniaUK podcast (Dr Filippo Biondi, Armando Mei & Trevor Grassi, 77 minutes)

It is not clear what happened to thre third member of the original team [Filippo Biondi, Armando Mei, and Corrado Malanga]

An exclusive Megalithomania interview with Armando Mei and Filippo Biondi of the Khafre Research Project analysing the brand new scientific SAR scan data that has revealed that all three pyramids on the Giza Plateau have massive underground features, including the Sphinx. We also talk to Trevor Grassi who has been researching the Giza underground for several years. This is the full up-to-date story of what is going on beneath the pyramids at Giza with discoveries that may change history as we know it.

I think it is a scam. Flint Dibble has produced a video showing why he thinks it is a scam. We are not alone, a number of colleagues from different fields have looked at what the Ciccolo team has produced so far, and clearly coonsiders that not enough has been shown so far to convince them at the moment that it has any evidential value. This is why the actual backup data need to be presented for peer review. A you Tube video is NOT that publication.

So, now we find him doubling down. "MediaMind" Journalist Holden Culotta ( @Holden_Culotta 25/01/2026) seems convinced:

“If this is true, this rewrites history.”
Filippo Biondi just blew Joe Rogan’s mind with what he discovered beneath the pyramids:
Massive shafts that go 2,000 feet down. And they connect to “huge chambers” deep underground. There are shafts and chambers below the Sphinx, too.

This may be the best evidence yet that the pyramids and the Sphinx were built by an advanced ancient civilization.

Biondi. “Currently, the shafts are blocked by debris, and there is rubbish inside.” “I performed a lot of scans at those shafts, and you see the shafts go down, down and they reach chambers that are below.”
Rogan: “How far do they go down?”
Biondi: “Approximately 600 meters.”
Rogan: “Wow.”
“So it’s not just under the Great Pyramid, it’s under all three pyramids.”
Biondi: “And also the Sphinx.”
Rogan: “And they all have chambers at the bottom of them?”
Biondi: “Yes.”
“At the end of the structures of these tubes … there are huge chambers.”
Rogan: “How huge?”
Biondi: “80 meters times 80 meters and times 80 meters of height.”
Rogan: “And that’s uniform underneath all of the pyramids? It’s the same dimensions?”
Biondi: “Yes.”

Gosh, eh? How exciting (if true)!

So, ground truthing. These shafts are "20 m diameter" and "600 metres in depth. At the bottom of each is an 80 x80 x80m chamber. If it really existed in that form, EACH shaft would produce approximately 391,372 cubic metres of loose rock rubble. The spoil heap FROM EACH SHAFT would require a base diameter of approximately 416 m if 50m tall, or approximately 138.8 m if 150m tall (using a bulking factor of 1.5 and an angle of repose of about 40 degrees. So where is all this dug-out rock, Dr Biondi?

Let us see a proper final publication.

 

But in the meantime, they've produced another interim  plan - this one I call the "Bigger Bollocks Giza Plan". 

They go further in this one. 

Another view:

Great Pyramid in the background (from a 'forthcoming scientific publication')

The "Mysterious" Split Boulder of Al-Naslaa

The Al-Naslaa rock formation is a remarkable geological and archaeological site located in north-western Saudi Arabia, in the Tabuk region near the Tayma oasis ( 27°13'45.78"N  38°34'18.14"E). First documented in 1883 by Charles Huber, the formation consists of two massive sandstone blocks, approximately nine meters high and seven and a half meters wide, separated by an exceptionally straight vertical fracture which has attracted attention amongst pseudoscientists.

The dominant explanation for the formation of this fracture involves natural geological processes. The rock has been separated along a joint, the natural split beint widened by freeze–thaw weathering, in which water infiltrates small cracks in the rock, freezes and expands, gradually enlarging the fissure over extended periods. Repeated cycles of freezing and melting, combined with wind-driven sand erosion in the desert environment, could account for both the separation of the rock and the smoothness of the fracture surfaces. Seismic activity may also have contributed by expanding pre-existing structural weaknesses within the sandstone.

In addition to its unusual geological features, Al-Naslaa is notable for the presence of prehistoric petroglyphs carved into its surface. These engravings depict animals, human figures, and abstract motifs, providing valuable evidence of the symbolic practices and daily activities of early inhabitants of the region. Animal figures may reflect hunting traditions and the former biodiversity of the area, while human figures often appear in dynamic scenes that suggest ritual, dance, or communal activities. The abstract symbols are generally interpreted as expressions of spiritual or symbolic belief systems. Together, these petroglyphs constitute part of an important archaeological record that contributes to broader understanding of prehistoric culture and social organization in north-western Arabia.

I have said it before (at least once in the context of the submerged Yonaguni formation) that there needs to be more attention paid to the phenomenon of jointing in rock masses in Pseudoarchaeology School. 

Atlantean Boulders

New terminology? Why?

What are the defining features that differentiate these walls from Cyclopean walls - a term already in widespread use? Why duplicate terminology if there is already a perfectly good label in common use?

"Looks Like....:

 

The way the pseudoarchaeologists present their case: